General

Column

Game Summary

Match summary:
Date: 2019-10-27
League: Friendlies Echidnas 2019
Teams: Echidnas Women’s 2019
       vs
       Short Men 2019
Result: 1-4 (7-25, 12-25, 13-25, 15-25, 25-19)
Duration: unknown

Players

Echidnas #
Alice Agnew .
Lucy Allwright .
Lidya Casimaty .
Rebecca Flinn .
Viivi Hokinen .
Bine Jansen .
Misha Masuda .
Thelma Nation .
Emilie Robles .
Opposition #
Scott Donovan 1
Mark Thomas 2
Harrison Tadd 3
Josh Probert 4
Sebastien Mancini 5
Masayuki Tatsumi 6
Triin Thorpe 7

Full Statistics

STARTERS

POINTS

RECEPTION

SERVE

ATTACK

BLOCK

SET

DIG

#

Player

1

2

3

4

5

Pts

BP

Net

Err

Ave

Exc%

Tot

Ace

Err

Tot

Tot

Kill

Blocked

Err

Freeball

Kill%

Kill block

Err

Ass

Err

Good

Err

Echidnas Women’s 2019

Viivi Hokinen

3

6

6

6

3

6

1

-3

1

3

7

22

4

2

6

2

18

1

Misha Masuda

5

5

5

2

2

8

5

-2

6

1.37

17

35

2

1

13

30

5

3

12

17

1

1

7

Rebecca Flinn

6

3

3

3

6

13

8

9

5

3

16

25

7

1

8

28

1

1

Alice Agnew

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

-10

1

1.00

5

3

9

30

5

6

3

17

1

2

4

Emilie Robles

L

L

L

L

L

-8

3

2.17

52

29

5

1

5

1

13

4

Thelma Nation

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

-9

2.00

1

1

5

15

5

1

2

20

25

2

8

4

Bine Jansen

2

2

2

5

5

9

4

-10

4

1.59

19

32

1

3

12

52

8

3

12

9

15

1

7

Total

43

24

-33

14

1.66

26

102

10

18

72

169

30

5

29

41

18

3

28

3

38

12

Short Men 2019

Total

60

42

31

14

17

118

50

37

2

11

1

74

9

35

1

GAME

POINTS

RECEPTION

SERVE

ATTACK

BLOCK

SET

DIG

Set

Pts

BP

Net

Err

Ave

Exc%

Tot

Ace

Err

Tot

Tot

Kill

Blocked

Err

Freeball

Kill%

Kill block

Err

Ass

Err

Good

Err

1

4

-13

5

1.30

13

23

3

7

28

4

5

9

14

5

6

4

2

6

3

-8

1

1.67

19

21

2

12

43

4

1

10

10

9

4

10

3

3

7

3

-11

5

1.68

27

22

1

6

14

22

5

1

5

4

23

1

5

1

1

1

4

9

5

-7

2

1.90

43

21

1

5

14

40

6

1

4

8

15

2

6

1

11

4

5

17

13

6

1

1.80

33

15

6

4

25

36

11

2

5

10

31

8

1

10

GAME

POINTS

RECEPTION

SERVE

ATTACK

BLOCK

SET

DIG

Rotation

Pts

BP

Net

Err

Ave

Exc%

Tot

Ace

Err

Tot

Tot

Kill

Blocked

Err

Freeball

Kill%

Kill block

Err

Ass

Err

Good

Err

1

7

7

-10

4

1.56

26

27

1

5

15

44

4

6

14

9

2

4

12

2

2

9

6

3

2

1.60

20

10

3

2

11

18

6

2

3

33

5

1

3

8

4

-5

2

1.64

36

14

2

3

11

29

6

4

3

21

5

1

9

3

4

6

-4

2

1.73

27

15

3

9

20

6

5

5

30

6

4

5

6

3

-13

4

1.15

5

20

3

4

12

25

2

6

8

8

1

3

1

7

4

6

7

4

-4

2.44

50

16

1

1

14

33

6

6

8

18

5

1

5

3

Skill Interpretation Target Achieved
Serve Ace to Error ratio 0.66 0.56
Passing Average number of choices by setter 2.20 1.66
Spiking Kill efficiency 22.50 18.00
Digging on hard driven balls per set 6.00 7.60
Blocking Kill blocks per set 2.00 0.60

The KPIs are still not achieved, but the game was largely non homogeneous. The 2 first sets were really difficult, with poor reception quality, low hitting efficiency, and very poor serving (Ace to Error ratio way too low). The however consistently improved as we played, and the figures for the final set are quite satisfactory.

Sideout Report

General sideout


We do have some trouble siding out, this is quite obvious. The fact that we score almost as much on low quality pass as on high quality pass indicates that we need to work on our hitting efficiency (even so we are facing a single block 46% of the time, we do not score as efficiently as we should in this context).

Pass quality

Reception outcome/Point outcome Point won Point lost Total
Error 0% (0) 100% (14) 100% (14)
Negative/poor pass 26% (9) 74% (25) 100% (34)
OK, no first tempo possible 33% (9) 67% (18) 100% (27)
Perfect/positive pass 37% (10) 63% (17) 100% (27)
Total 27% (28) 73% (74) 100% (102)

There is a slight better chance of winning the chance when we pass well (37-33-26). We could aim for higher efficiency in the ideal scenario. This re-enforces the message communicated above.

Transition vs Serve Receive

Serve receive
attack_tempo/evaluation Kill In play Blocked Error Total
Quick ball 5% (4) 12% (10) 2% (2) 4% (3) 23% (19)
Fast ball 2% (2) 20% (16) 1% (1) 9% (7) 32% (26)
High ball 0% (0) 9% (7) 0% (0) 1% (1) 10% (8)
Freeball or unclassified 1% (1) 32% (26) 0% (0) 1% (1) 35% (28)
Total 9% (7) 73% (59) 4% (3) 15% (12) 100% (81)
In transition
attack_tempo/evaluation Kill In play Blocked Error Total
Quick ball 5% (4) 6% (5) 0% (0) 1% (1) 11% (10)
Fast ball 11% (10) 11% (10) 1% (1) 8% (7) 32% (28)
High ball 6% (5) 16% (14) 1% (1) 2% (2) 25% (22)
Freeball or unclassified 5% (4) 19% (17) 0% (0) 8% (7) 32% (28)
Total 26% (23) 52% (46) 2% (2) 19% (17) 100% (88)

The main message here is that the distribution of attack tempos is quite appropriate. The ratio of freeballs on the other hand is too important. Maybe we could adjust our footwork, or give ourselves more time to make sure we have a chance to hit the ball. Some setter/hitter adjustments are probably required too.

Technical Aspect

Column

Serving report

Serve summary

evaluation/skill_type Float serve Jump serve Jump-float serve Topspin serve Unknown serve type Total
Ace 17% (8) 0% (0) 17% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 14% (10)
Positive, opponent some attack 19% (9) 100% (1) 42% (5) 0% (0) 40% (4) 26% (19)
OK, no first tempo possible 21% (10) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 10% (1) 15% (11)
Negative, opponent free attack 11% (5) 0% (0) 33% (4) 0% (0) 50% (5) 19% (14)
Error 32% (15) 0% (0) 8% (1) 100% (2) 0% (0) 25% (18)
Total 100% (47) 100% (1) 100% (12) 100% (2) 100% (10) 100% (72)

The jump float serve is the one which seems to provide the better serve efficiency. We will keep pushing in that direction at training.

Serve directions

Setting report

attack_tempo/Setter position 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Quick ball 9% (4) 31% (5) 25% (7) 25% (5) 8% (2) 10% (3) 16% (26)
Fast ball 30% (13) 25% (4) 32% (9) 25% (5) 29% (7) 52% (16) 33% (54)
High ball 26% (11) 13% (2) 21% (6) 25% (5) 17% (4) 6% (2) 19% (30)
Freeball or unclassified 35% (15) 31% (5) 21% (6) 25% (5) 46% (11) 32% (10) 32% (52)
Total 100% (43) 100% (16) 100% (28) 100% (20) 100% (24) 100% (31) 100% (162)
attack_tempo/num_players No block 1 player block 2 player block Total
Quick ball 0% (0) 58% (15) 42% (11) 100% (26)
Fast ball 7% (4) 43% (23) 50% (27) 100% (54)
High ball 23% (7) 40% (12) 37% (11) 100% (30)
Freeball or unclassified 45% (5) 55% (6) 0% (0) 100% (11)
Total 13% (16) 46% (56) 40% (49) 100% (121)

Low use of middle players when the setter is front court. Adjustment required between the setter and the middle hitters. A few No-block by the opoosition team, meaning they made the choice not to block (in particular on high balls). They identified our hitting weakness, and exploited it. This can be addressed by hitting close to lines, and in seams between defenders.

Hitting report

Hitting type summary

attack_tempo Attack type Kill In play Blocked Error
Quick ball A Quick 2 1 . 1
B Quick . . 1 .
Back-one 2 3 . 3
Slide 4 9 . .
Fast ball 6 (to position 2) 4 7 . 5
Black (or 11) 5 16 2 6
C or D (backcourt) 1 1 . .
Pipe 2 2 . 3
High ball 10 (backcourt) . 1 . .
4 (to position 4) 5 16 . 3
5 (to position 2) . 3 1 .
Release Pipe . 1 . .
Unclassified 2 2 . .
Other attack 1 2 . 1
Setter dump 1 2 . .

Hitting efficiency against block

num_players Quick ball Fast ball High ball Unclassified
No block . 25.0 14.3 80
1 player block 26.7 21.7 25.0 0
2 player block 36.4 22.2 9.1 .

Hitting directions

Hit locations


Compared to the first game, much more zones have been reached. Which translated in a better hitting efficiency. We can probably aim for deeper corners, and insist in hitting more lines, especially from 4, when that is an option. A few more tips as well. Some real improvement in the angles chosen by the hitters, accross the board.

Tactical Aspect

Column

Offense System report

Set choice

Attack choice

Phase/Hit type Hard spike Spike off the block Soft spike/topspin 3110 Freeball over Setter tip Total
Reception 50.6% (41) 7.4% (6) 16.0% (13) 0.0% (0) 24.7% (20) 1.2% (1) 100.0% (81)
Transition 37.5% (33) 8.0% (7) 27.3% (24) 1.1% (1) 23.9% (21) 2.3% (2) 100.0% (88)
Total 43.8% (74) 7.7% (13) 21.9% (37) 0.6% (1) 24.3% (41) 1.8% (3) 100.0% (169)

Distribution is well balanced in reception, less so in transition. The opposite (2 and 9) needs to make herself available to balance the offense to the two ends of the net. Given the height of the block, on 7% of hits being played off the block is not really much. We can try to take advantage of the block, by hitting its edges for example.

Defense System report

Opposition kills

Defensive responsibilities

Comments

The defense gaps displayed in these plots are probably the result of not being used to balls being driven that fast to us. We are definitely getting better, but there is room for improvement especially when the opposition hit is coming from 4.